ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Thromboprophylaxis utilization rate and associated factors among patients attending the emergency department of tertiary care hospitals in Addis Ababa city, Ethiopia: a multicentre prospective study.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly recognition of venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk and intervention with appropriate thromboprophylaxis are effective for preventing adverse disease outcomes in hospitalized patients. However, there is a paucity of data to know the use of anticoagulant prophylaxis rate in the emergency department of Ethiopia. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the rate of prophylaxis use and associated factors in the emergency department of tertiary care hospitals in Addis Ababa city, Ethiopia.
methodA multicentre hospital-based prospective study was conducted in patients admitted to the adult emergency department of three selected tertiary care hospitals. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors for initiating anticoagulant prophylaxis. P < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistically significant.
resultsA total of 422 patients were enrolled. Nearly two-thirds (70.64%) of the participants had a Padua Risk Prediction Score of ≥ 4 points, indicating a high risk of developing venous thromboembolism. Among the 296 patients eligible for anticoagulant prophylaxis, only 33.4% received it. Patients who were bedridden ≥ 3 days were three times more likely to receive anticoagulant prophylaxis (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 3.129,95% CI = 1.310–7.474, P = 0.001). Similarly, patients aged ≥ 70 years were more likely to receive prophylaxis (AOR) = 1.880, 95% CI = 1.007–3.510, P = 0.047). However, patients with a length of stay (LOS) < 7 days (AOR) = 0.192, 95% CI = 0.095–0.385, P < 0.001) and those who presented with an acute infection (AOR) = 0.619, 95% (CI): 0.342–1.122, P < 0.014) were less likely to receive anticoagulant prophylaxis.
conclusionThromboprophylaxis was underutilized in the emergency department, even among high-risk patients. Factors such as older age, prolonged immobility, prior VTE, active cancer, infection, and longer emergency department (ED) stay significantly influenced the likelihood of prophylaxis administration. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.